minipimp wrote:if you want clean trains try the indiana railroad
do you have a picture?
Newyorkcentralfan wrote:http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=134451&nseq=398&showcomments=true#comments Hey mister, check your oil?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=134451&nseq=398&showcomments=true#comments
Hey mister, check your oil?
You should post your picture to the Ugly Locomotive section.
I;m very new to posting pix on the web. I did click something to share the pix (just now) but don't know if it'll work.
But anway - railfan's picture is very similar and it's a much better picture. More professional. I feel that engine was only painted once - at the factory, over 30 years ago. I've seen it hauling autos, bulk, containers, boxcars, everything but aggregate and coal (coal drags always have GE44's - 2 in front 1 in back). There's no mistaking that engine, as you can see.
http://www.kodakgallery.com/PhotoView.jsp?UAUTOLOGIN_ID=516498341208&collid=516498341208.264609341208.1186837077573&photoid=164609341208&folderid=0&view=1&page=1&sort_order=&albumsperpage=&navfolderid=2007
It says you have to login
Here's another one of the 3216.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/19480/DSC01094.JPG
I still haven't figured out linking pix but heres a link to 3216 now - quite a contrast
A significant batch of 40-2's in the UP 31xx-32xx series have that same paint problem. Looks they got a bad sunburns and are now half peeled.
UP 3156 7/22/07 in El Paso
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=821559
6/13/07 Omaha shot of bakupolo's nominee for buttugly: conductor's door is a real classy touch!
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=780251
bakupolo wrote: I'm not big on posting pix (too technical) but none of these locos holds a candle to UP3216 - the rat loco of all rat locos. Peeling paint adds luster, oily smears on glass, wheels not eactly round, sheet metal worn thin, and this sucker earns it's keep because I see it pulling all kinds of freight over town lake bridge main UP road and it hardly smokes - believe me this machine can-not-be-mistaken. It's a living example of how durable the old SD40-2 is. I haven't seen it for a month, however. I hope UP didn't send it to the glue factory.I can send a picture or 2 if anybody wants one.
I'm not big on posting pix (too technical) but none of these locos holds a candle to UP3216 - the rat loco of all rat locos. Peeling paint adds luster, oily smears on glass, wheels not eactly round, sheet metal worn thin, and this sucker earns it's keep because I see it pulling all kinds of freight over town lake bridge main UP road and it hardly smokes - believe me this machine can-not-be-mistaken. It's a living example of how durable the old SD40-2 is.
I haven't seen it for a month, however. I hope UP didn't send it to the glue factory.
I can send a picture or 2 if anybody wants one.
Here's a picture of it, taken 31 - that's thirty-one - years ago -
nsrayman wrote: this one was dirty
this one was dirty
Ha! A locomotive with two different paint schemes of the same railroad.
kevin hill wrote: Here's a good one!
Here's a good one!
Now that's a winner.
Rodney Beck wrote:A dirty locomotive is one that is makeing money, a clean locomotive is one that has to much time in the shop something is wrong with it. Rodney
A dirty locomotive is one that is makeing money, a clean locomotive is one that has to much time in the shop something is wrong with it.
Rodney
Like this one
When I blew this picture up "Road Hog" was written on the fuel tank.This would make a neat model project.I guess UP has no time to repair the paint job.All in the details
Eastbound NS freight Berea Ohio 7-31-07
Rodney Beck wrote: A dirty locomotive is one that is makeing money, a clean locomotive is one that has to much time in the shop something is wrong with it. Rodney
MLG4'8.5"
Limitedclear wrote: galaxy wrote: I have to say that if I owned a railroad, I'd want the locos to be cleaned at least as often as they were refueled, or as often as possible. Just like we do with our cars, especially when dirty in winter. Today's pressure washers can use filtered recycled water and sprayers can make high use of little water and soap.Black locos tend not to show dirt as much, but I don't care if the locos are pink with purple and yellow polka-dots, they should be reasonably clean if the railroad has any pride in its equipment! Trucking companies and owner/operators tend to keep their fleets clean on the dirty open roads, and RRs can't? LOLI love the railroads, but think they should spend a little more care in their appearance.Not to pick on you, too much. I at least give you credit for saying what you mean.Locomotive paint is expensive. A good locomotive paint job can cost $30,000 or more. EPA regs, spray booths, limitations on sand blasting, labor costs and specialized paint requirements and new FRA reflectorization requirements have all combined to these high prices. When a short line has to make choices between necessary bridge and track repairs or payroll versus a nice looking paint job, the responsible choice is to fix the infrastructure or pay the employees. That is the reality of railroading. Sure, its nice to have a clean good looking locomotive, but even washing the power can give rise to litigation. Remember, they have to be washed at a wash rack that has EPA approved drainage handling equipment so all that oil and fuel that are getting washed off plus the detergent don't get into streams and lakes or perhaps the groundwater. More expense. No more just get out the hose and the squeegee at the roundhouse.Railfans like to have pretty paint for nice photos. Railroaders like to have good looking property and equipment, but it isn't a priority and isn't likely to be in the future as costs continue their upward spiral.LC
galaxy wrote: I have to say that if I owned a railroad, I'd want the locos to be cleaned at least as often as they were refueled, or as often as possible. Just like we do with our cars, especially when dirty in winter. Today's pressure washers can use filtered recycled water and sprayers can make high use of little water and soap.Black locos tend not to show dirt as much, but I don't care if the locos are pink with purple and yellow polka-dots, they should be reasonably clean if the railroad has any pride in its equipment! Trucking companies and owner/operators tend to keep their fleets clean on the dirty open roads, and RRs can't? LOLI love the railroads, but think they should spend a little more care in their appearance.
I have to say that if I owned a railroad, I'd want the locos to be cleaned at least as often as they were refueled, or as often as possible. Just like we do with our cars, especially when dirty in winter. Today's pressure washers can use filtered recycled water and sprayers can make high use of little water and soap.
Black locos tend not to show dirt as much, but I don't care if the locos are pink with purple and yellow polka-dots, they should be reasonably clean if the railroad has any pride in its equipment! Trucking companies and owner/operators tend to keep their fleets clean on the dirty open roads, and RRs can't? LOL
I love the railroads, but think they should spend a little more care in their appearance.
Not to pick on you, too much. I at least give you credit for saying what you mean.
Locomotive paint is expensive. A good locomotive paint job can cost $30,000 or more. EPA regs, spray booths, limitations on sand blasting, labor costs and specialized paint requirements and new FRA reflectorization requirements have all combined to these high prices. When a short line has to make choices between necessary bridge and track repairs or payroll versus a nice looking paint job, the responsible choice is to fix the infrastructure or pay the employees. That is the reality of railroading. Sure, its nice to have a clean good looking locomotive, but even washing the power can give rise to litigation. Remember, they have to be washed at a wash rack that has EPA approved drainage handling equipment so all that oil and fuel that are getting washed off plus the detergent don't get into streams and lakes or perhaps the groundwater. More expense. No more just get out the hose and the squeegee at the roundhouse.
Railfans like to have pretty paint for nice photos. Railroaders like to have good looking property and equipment, but it isn't a priority and isn't likely to be in the future as costs continue their upward spiral.
LC
I don't mind a dirty locomotive... Sometimes it gives the photo that extra "character" you know? I like shooting train pictures, but, I am not picky. I don't "need" a shiny locomotive to make a good photo. Heck give me a loco with the doors open, a reflecto-vest on the hand rails, the and the engineer NOT waving, and I am still happy.....
riogrande5761 wrote: snagletooth wrote: foamer8101 wrote: thanks, dansapo that is filthy ....WOW!!!!....I thinks its bath time!.....,foamer8101If it was still on the Grande, it'd be voted the cleanest locomotive. If you can read the name, It's no longer a Grande!From what I understand, the Rio Grande loco's didn't get chronically dirty until after the merger with the SP. Only then did it become the "real grime" rail road.
snagletooth wrote: foamer8101 wrote: thanks, dansapo that is filthy ....WOW!!!!....I thinks its bath time!.....,foamer8101If it was still on the Grande, it'd be voted the cleanest locomotive. If you can read the name, It's no longer a Grande!
foamer8101 wrote: thanks, dansapo that is filthy ....WOW!!!!....I thinks its bath time!.....,foamer8101
thanks, dansapo that is filthy ....WOW!!!!....I thinks its bath time!.....,foamer8101
From what I understand, the Rio Grande loco's didn't get chronically dirty until after the merger with the SP. Only then did it become the "real grime" rail road.
They washed quite often,probably more often than most roads, but they still got dirty faster than they could wash them.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Railfan1 wrote: Here are some candidates:http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/21867/BNSF8282.jpg http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/13141/UP%204417.JPG
Here are some candidates:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/21867/BNSF8282.jpg
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/13141/UP%204417.JPG
The BNSF Warbonnet locomotive is a good example of what we're talking about. BNSF's River Line runs past my house, and I have seen these locomotives, arguably the best diesel color scheme ever, get dirtier and dirtier over the years. For some reason, the Santa Fe blue and gold locomotives don't seem to show the dirt as much. Neither do the Cascade green locos.
I guess this goes back to costs and environmental regulations. This is why I seldom bother to go to the window when I hear a train whistle.
Sweet mother of Moses!!! What is that!? Man, that's an ugly loco....(topic) I didn't realize it was that difficult just to keep locomotives clean. All the EPA, tree-hugger hoops and everything. Where's Morrison K. when you need him? We need a fleet of new, high hp green locos that don't get so gummed up with dirty diesel residue (God bless it anyway). Then we can bring the squeegy and water hose back.
dirtiest RR/loco is ANYTHING in the NE on 4-1-76.....
Limitedclear wrote: Railfan1 wrote: $30,000 for a paint job? Now I know Why NS and CSX painted their own locos.Some painting is done in RR shops and others by outside contractors or manufacturers. NS does paint at Juniata Shops. EMD is well known for contracting out paint work to Alstom, Super Steel and others. Repaints can be done in house or contracted out depending upon the railroad and their union agreements and other factors, primarily cost. A large portion of the cost is the labor needed to prep the locomotive for painting including masking off all the doors and trucks, removing lights and numberboards or masking them off and grinding and filling rust or other damage. Once all that is done, the actual painting is much simpler and quicker, usually 3 coats depending upon the type of paint used. Remember, if specialty paint like Imron is used there are strict temperature and humidity requirements that must be met to assure the paint cures properly. These and other concerns all factor into the cost in addition to the number of colors, size of the unit being painted and other factors in my last post. Improper painting can be embarassing like two different numbers being painted on one locomotive or very expensive like accidentally painting the wheels (wheels are prohibited from painting by FRA Regs as it makes it more difficult to identify critical defects in the wheels and if painted, the wheels must be replaced).LC
Railfan1 wrote: $30,000 for a paint job? Now I know Why NS and CSX painted their own locos.
$30,000 for a paint job? Now I know Why NS and CSX painted their own locos.
Some painting is done in RR shops and others by outside contractors or manufacturers. NS does paint at Juniata Shops. EMD is well known for contracting out paint work to Alstom, Super Steel and others. Repaints can be done in house or contracted out depending upon the railroad and their union agreements and other factors, primarily cost. A large portion of the cost is the labor needed to prep the locomotive for painting including masking off all the doors and trucks, removing lights and numberboards or masking them off and grinding and filling rust or other damage. Once all that is done, the actual painting is much simpler and quicker, usually 3 coats depending upon the type of paint used. Remember, if specialty paint like Imron is used there are strict temperature and humidity requirements that must be met to assure the paint cures properly. These and other concerns all factor into the cost in addition to the number of colors, size of the unit being painted and other factors in my last post. Improper painting can be embarassing like two different numbers being painted on one locomotive or very expensive like accidentally painting the wheels (wheels are prohibited from painting by FRA Regs as it makes it more difficult to identify critical defects in the wheels and if painted, the wheels must be replaced).
I always wondered how that was done. Thanks
silicon212 wrote: would have been using the image tags <img> </img> (except use the [ or ] instead of < or >)<img>http://www.silicon212.org/sd40-2.jpg</img>
would have been using the image tags <img> </img> (except use the [ or ] instead of < or >)
<img>http://www.silicon212.org/sd40-2.jpg</img>
Just to stray off topic for a second, thanks for posting that picture. I have been looking for a good example of that UP scheme.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.